Educating ‘Future Professionals’ for Sustainable …
613
The ‘atmospheric space’ as space of speakabilities and sayabilities
All these different facets unify in a collective narration of difference and a different
space. In this narrations, we can see a different quality of university emerging. It refers
to a created, socially designed and pedagogical space.
Trainers perceive this as an atmospheric arrangement. As a pedagogical project
it allows ‘low-threshold articulation’ and speakability of concerns and critique:
(.) I definitely had the impression, that it depends a lot on us trainers, to which extent they
really speak out, to criticize things and to address negative things especially in the first
semester – I didn’t dare to do so and well I was a much more shy student in the beginning. It
really made me happy to be able to create an atmosphere, where everybody felt at ease and
people said what they thought (Kä Group 2 p. 16 l. 765–774).
Transitioning into university students perceive the program as an unfolding biographical space of entry and orientation. Secondly, it unfolds as space of ‘friendship
and relations’. Thirdly, we can see an explorational space and space of experience.
Fourthly and in a comprehensive perspective, the program unfolds as ‘atmospheric
space‘.
The program especially supports articulation and voicing of those students, who
normally would not dare to speak. In this sense the program supports democratizing
university as an organization. As students take responsibility for themselves and
for others, they enter into the students’ union and membership rates of the students
organizing themselves rise enormously. Students discover university as a space of codesign and co-creation. Students’ engagement changes the organizational context,
too. They start to speak out and challenge the system. The program in this sense
brings about a difference. It shows a ’Heterotopia’ in the Foucauldian sense (2005,
2015). This specific quality not only is to be found in the atmospheric differences.
It especially unfolds by students speaking out and articulate whatever is crucial and
critical.
The ‘atmospheric space’ as space of ‘vertical literacy’ and co-creation of future
After reflecting on their habitual positionings, the program asked students to
design societal alternatives. By using collective approaches of system sculpting, students created prototypes for institutional change and sustainable societal solutions.
With the topic of habitusreflexivity, students were able to professionalize self observation. The program topics ‘systems thinking’ and social innovation supported participatory innovation learning. Students unlocked their creativity and became literate
in “aesthetics” and the cultivation of the senses. Within the program, the social field
of a committed training group was created. It showed to be a strong gateway for student learning (Scharmer 2015b). By working with ‘journaling’ methods, the deeper
sources of knowing were addressed. In this sense, the program supports ‘vertical
literacy’ (Scharmer 2018) and collective co-creation of our common future.
Following the Foucauldian question “Who speaks?” (Foucault 2005), we could
see students’ democratization. The empirical analysis of the program shows, that
it is indeed an institutional enabling space within the university. It emerges as a
counter space, a counter placement and a counter bearing (Foucault 1992, p. 39).
613
The ‘atmospheric space’ as space of speakabilities and sayabilities
All these different facets unify in a collective narration of difference and a different
space. In this narrations, we can see a different quality of university emerging. It refers
to a created, socially designed and pedagogical space.
Trainers perceive this as an atmospheric arrangement. As a pedagogical project
it allows ‘low-threshold articulation’ and speakability of concerns and critique:
(.) I definitely had the impression, that it depends a lot on us trainers, to which extent they
really speak out, to criticize things and to address negative things especially in the first
semester – I didn’t dare to do so and well I was a much more shy student in the beginning. It
really made me happy to be able to create an atmosphere, where everybody felt at ease and
people said what they thought (Kä Group 2 p. 16 l. 765–774).
Transitioning into university students perceive the program as an unfolding biographical space of entry and orientation. Secondly, it unfolds as space of ‘friendship
and relations’. Thirdly, we can see an explorational space and space of experience.
Fourthly and in a comprehensive perspective, the program unfolds as ‘atmospheric
space‘.
The program especially supports articulation and voicing of those students, who
normally would not dare to speak. In this sense the program supports democratizing
university as an organization. As students take responsibility for themselves and
for others, they enter into the students’ union and membership rates of the students
organizing themselves rise enormously. Students discover university as a space of codesign and co-creation. Students’ engagement changes the organizational context,
too. They start to speak out and challenge the system. The program in this sense
brings about a difference. It shows a ’Heterotopia’ in the Foucauldian sense (2005,
2015). This specific quality not only is to be found in the atmospheric differences.
It especially unfolds by students speaking out and articulate whatever is crucial and
critical.
The ‘atmospheric space’ as space of ‘vertical literacy’ and co-creation of future
After reflecting on their habitual positionings, the program asked students to
design societal alternatives. By using collective approaches of system sculpting, students created prototypes for institutional change and sustainable societal solutions.
With the topic of habitusreflexivity, students were able to professionalize self observation. The program topics ‘systems thinking’ and social innovation supported participatory innovation learning. Students unlocked their creativity and became literate
in “aesthetics” and the cultivation of the senses. Within the program, the social field
of a committed training group was created. It showed to be a strong gateway for student learning (Scharmer 2015b). By working with ‘journaling’ methods, the deeper
sources of knowing were addressed. In this sense, the program supports ‘vertical
literacy’ (Scharmer 2018) and collective co-creation of our common future.
Following the Foucauldian question “Who speaks?” (Foucault 2005), we could
see students’ democratization. The empirical analysis of the program shows, that
it is indeed an institutional enabling space within the university. It emerges as a
counter space, a counter placement and a counter bearing (Foucault 1992, p. 39).